24-01-2015, 09:59 AM
Will he, won't he - answer questions under oath.
Will he hell.
Someone should tell the American lawyers that the royal family - and numerous others too - are far above the law.
The judiciary make a pledge of loyalty to the Queen when taking office. I don't ever remember a royal attending a court hearing. They have flunkies to do that as observers if need be.
Will he hell.
Someone should tell the American lawyers that the royal family - and numerous others too - are far above the law.
The judiciary make a pledge of loyalty to the Queen when taking office. I don't ever remember a royal attending a court hearing. They have flunkies to do that as observers if need be.
Quote:Lawyers fight to compel Prince Andrew to answer claims of sex with girl, 17
Attorneys for Virginia Roberts request that Andrew answer questions under oath but admit there is no easy means by which to compel his testimony'
- Jon Swaine in New York
- Follow @jonswaine Follow @GuardianUS
- theguardian.com, Friday 23 January 2015 18.57 GMT
Andrew cannot easily be subpoenaed to give testimony because he lives outside the jurisdiction of the US courts. Photograph: Jean-Christophe Bott/EPA
The woman who alleges that she was made to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17 may file a request to the British courts under an international treaty to try to compel him to answer questions under oath.
Lawyers for Virginia Roberts have written to Andrew at Buckingham Palace to ask for a two-hour sworn interview about Roberts' claim that she was forced into sexual relations with Andrew by his friend Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier and convicted sex offender.
Andrew spoke publicly on Thursday to "reiterate and to reaffirm" a strenuous denial of the allegation by Buckingham Palace, which describes it as "categorically untrue".
The lawyers' letter, which was made public in a court filing on Wednesday, told Andrew: "The interview could be conducted at a time and place of your choosing." However, an attempt to deliver the letter by FedEx was apparently rejected by the Palace.
Jack Scarola, the attorney who wrote the letter, told the Guardian on Thursday that his legal team would try again to deliver the letter through the British embassy in the US. An embassy spokeswoman said at the end of Thursday afternoon that no attempt had been made to deliver it.
Related: Jeffrey Epstein: inside the decade of scandal entangling Prince Andrew
Scarola said that if the letter could not be delivered, he would consider making a new request for Andrew to answer questions under a 1970 Hague convention on taking evidence abroad, to which the US and the UK are both signatories.
"There is no easy means by which to compel his testimony," said Scarola. "We are hoping that he will make the decision to voluntarily cooperate. If he chooses not to make that decision, then we will further consider what steps we might take under the Hague convention."
Because the attorneys' request relates to a civil lawsuit in the US courts, and Andrew is not facing any criminal action, issues around whether Andrew is protected by diplomatic immunity, and the extradition treaty between the US and UK, are irrelevant at this stage.
Andrew cannot easily be subpoenaed to give testimony, as an American resident might be, because he lives outside the jurisdiction of the US courts. Visiting Florida may put him at risk of being served with a subpoena to appear there, lawyers said.
But a server may find it too difficult to get close enough to the Duke and past his security detail to physically hand him legal papers. And it is unlikely that Andrew would be vigorously pursued if he ignored the subpoena and returned to the UK. So to compel Andrew to be interviewed, Roberts' attorneys would ask the British courts to question him, through a "letter of request".
Attorneys may file these requests to the US court considering their case, according to Friedrich Seitz, a Los Angeles-based attorney who has written on the subject. The request may then be passed by the judge to the relevant foreign legal authorities. However, according to guidance published by the US department of justice, American attorneys may actually make these requests directly.
Because Andrew lives in the UK, the request would be sent to Barbara Fontaine, the Senior Master of the Queen's Bench Division and Queen's Remembrancer, at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Fontaine serves under Sir Brian Leveson, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, who carried out an inquiry into the ethics of the British media.
It is not clear how the judiciary might handle a request relating to a member of the royal family. The Hague convention states that a country may reject a request if it "considers that its sovereignty or security would be prejudiced".
"International judicial assistance is always discretionary, based upon principles of comity rather than treaty, and is also subject to legal procedures in the requested country," said Marcus Funk, a defence attorney and former prosecutor, who was not referring specifically to the case involving Andrew. "Though governments may be less likely to assist if the subject of the request is a government official," said Funk.
According to The Hague's model letter of request, Roberts' attorneys should name Prince Andrew as someone they want "examined" for their case, and specify that they want him questioned orally and under oath. They should also supply a list of questions they want Andrew to answer if their request is granted by Fontaine.
Under directions to the courts from Britain's ministry of justice, this interview should "be conducted in the same way as if the witness were giving evidence at a trial". It may be carried out by "any fit and proper person nominated" by Roberts' attorneys or "any other person whom the court considers suitable". Andrew would be entitled to have a lawyer present.
In general, when a Briton is asked for evidence in the US "the deposition would almost certainly take place in the UK the witness would not be compelled to travel to the US", said Funk.
The interviewer would then give a transcript of the questioning to Fontaine, who would send it together with "a certificate sealed with the seal of the Senior Courts" to Roberts' attorneys.
If Andrew refused or failed to show up for the interview, the law states that Roberts' attorneys could apply for a court order instructing him to do so. Disobeying a court order in the UK may leave someone open to prosecution for contempt of court.
The 1975 UK law that covers giving evidence to foreign courts indicates that Andrew or any other Briton could claim to be shielded from having to give evidence if "doing so would be prejudicial to the security of the United Kingdom". The only evidence needed to prove this is "a certificate signed by or on behalf of" the relevant secretary of state in the British cabinet.
"It is a cumbersome procedure and a very lengthy procedure, so we are obviously hoping to avoid that," said Scarola. "It may or may not become necessary in the future."
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
::